Isn't the mirrorless "ILC" category basically an evolution of the Point-and-shoot category? Why are so many people throwing around the "full frame" term in the same sentence, and making statements like, "FF or bust for me!", or,"Another disappointment from Canon"....

Why will anyone be shocked or complain when it is not FF? Maybe there will be a "higher end" version too, but isn't one of those Ashton Kutcher mini fashion cameras also a "high-end" model???

Y'all new to relaxo.

And while I'm on a rant, why do people consider 35mm "full-frame" to be a "Pro" size? My EOS Rebel G is plastic all the way with 3 focusing points and a FULL FRAME image area!

Isn't the mirrorless "ILC" category basically an evolution of the Point-and-shoot category? Why are so many people throwing around the "full frame" term in the same sentence, and making statements like, "FF or bust for me!".........

Stop. See Leica M9 / upcoming M10.

A highly desirable camera at a very undesirable price. The camera is a little bit bigger than other mirrorless cameras, but still smaller and lighter than a DSLR, and the lenses are fairly small too.

If Canon can make a camera like this with an "affordable" pricetag (around 3.5K instead of Leicas 7K), it will be a huge success! Especially among people who wants to go mirrorless without sacrificing image quality, thin DOF capabilities and high ISO performance.

Isn't the mirrorless "ILC" category basically an evolution of the Point-and-shoot category? Why are so many people throwing around the "full frame" term in the same sentence, and making statements like, "FF or bust for me!", or,"Another disappointment from Canon"....

Why will anyone be shocked or complain when it is not FF? Maybe there will be a "higher end" version too, but isn't one of those Ashton Kutcher mini fashion cameras also a "high-end" model???

Y'all new to relaxo.

And while I'm on a rant, why do people consider 35mm "full-frame" to be a "Pro" size? My EOS Rebel G is plastic all the way with 3 focusing points and a FULL FRAME image area!

FF is just another size, it ain't the holy grail.

Many people would argue that the bigger the better when it comes to sensors.

Also, mirrorless cameras are probably the future. Less mechanical parts means fewer tech limitations, minor bulk, minor production costs, and so on. One day not very far they will take over the market same as digital made with film. So it's cool to know "which death we're going to die".

Isn't the mirrorless "ILC" category basically an evolution of the Point-and-shoot category? Why are so many people throwing around the "full frame" term in the same sentence, and making statements like, "FF or bust for me!".........

Stop. See Leica M9 / upcoming M10.

A highly desirable camera at a very undesirable price. The camera is a little bit bigger than other mirrorless cameras, but still smaller and lighter than a DSLR, and the lenses are fairly small too.

If Canon can make a camera like this with an "affordable" pricetag (around 3.5K instead of Leicas 7K), it will be a huge success! Especially among people who wants to go mirrorless without sacrificing image quality, thin DOF capabilities and high ISO performance.

exactly. Yes, I want something like a 5D3 ... just in a compact mirrorless package. No, I do not want to make any sacrifices in terms of IQ, AF, speed and performance. No, I do not want Leicas yesteryear anachronistic rangefinder manual focus stuff. And ... I definitely do not want to pay Leica prices for it.

Best thing is: such a camera can be made today. Even by Canon, if we - the market - push 'em hard enough.

Best thing is: such a camera can be made today. Even by Canon, if we - the market - push 'em hard enough.

true, but I'm not sure I agree that the market is large enough to make it very cheap. For people who use the camera for several hours at a time or who have large tele lenses, the ergonomics would suck and they wouldn't use it. So cutting out that audience raises the price. And full frame raises the cost, so the audience was limited already.

We see that with the high end L glass, canon can make any item awesome for a niche market, but it cost a LOT to get it. I'd like one for more portable applications, but, I doubt I'd pay the premium. And I'd doubt it releases at 1500-2000

The first digital cameras were 320 by 200 pixels in 16 colours. That is a laughable resolution. At the time, some of us said to wait and see, the resolution would become better than 35mm film. Who's laughing now?

Digital is not film. To treat it like film is to apply restrictions to it that need not apply. To expect that an optical viewfinder technology is the best solution for a digital camera is flawed logic. Look at the latest generation of Apple products.... the Retina display is made up of finer pixels than the eye can detect.... this technology will give you as good of a viewfinder as optical because it is the human eye that is the limiting factor..... not the optics and not the display.

The digital viewfinder has a multitude of advantages over the optical viewfinder. First, by leaving it in the same spot as the optical viewfinder we can retain a familiar form factor yet eliminate most of the mechanicals of the camera... no more shutter... longer battery life, longer camera life... and you can adjust brightness/contrast/gamma on a digital viewfinder... try that on optical!

By putting an additional digital viewfinder on the back of the camera, the 3" or so tilt/swivel/touch screen, we open up a lot of new possibilities to see the image and control the camera.

And who says that the viewfinder has to be on the cameras? Ever hear of tethered shooting? I use it a lot for astrophotography.... and it's great for bird pictures too, set the camera up near the nest and step WAY back... How long before there is a wireless interface to the camera and you can use a smart phone or tablet?

Mirrorless is the way of the future. Don't expect the first ones out to be the "best camera ever", but just watch how soon they eclipse APSC and full frame...

« Last Edit: June 23, 2012, 12:30:15 PM by Don Haines »

Logged

The best camera is the one in your hands

briansquibb

The first digital cameras were 320 by 200 pixels in 16 colours. That is a laughable resolution. At the time, some of us said to wait and see, the resolution would become better than 35mm film. Who's laughing now?

Digital is not film. To treat it like film to apply restrictions to it that need not apply. To expect that an optical viewfinder technology is the best solution for a digital camera is flawed logic. Look at the latest generation of Apple products.... the Retina display is made up of finer pixels than the eye can detect.... this technology will give you as good of a viewfinder as optical because it is the human eye that is the limiting factor..... not the optics and not the display.

The digital viewfinder has a multitude of advantages over the optical viewfinder. First, by leaving it in the same spot as the optical viewfinder we can retain a familiar form factor yet eliminate most of the mechanicals of the camera... no more shutter... longer battery life, longer camera life... and you can adjust brightness/contrast/gamma on a digital viewfinder... try that on optical!

By putting an additional digital viewfinder on the back of the camera, the 3" or so tilt/swivel/touch screen, we open up a lot of new possibilities to see the image and control the camera.

And who says that the viewfinder has to be on the cameras? Ever hear of tethered shooting? I use it a lot for astrophotography.... and it's great for bird pictures too, set the camera up near the nest and step WAY back... How long before there is a wireless interface to the camera and you can use a smart phone or tablet?

Mirrorless is the way of the future. Don't expect the first ones out to be the "best camera ever", but just watch how soon they eclipse APSC and full frame...

My D30 has 3mps and 3AF points

Tethered shooting is rather old hat - I have been using it since 2009 for macro work when my camera was attached to the PC with a 26" monitor (4:3) There was talk a couple of years ago of wireless USB being the way foward - but never happened as bluetooth took the steam out of the initiative. Luckily as it happens as it was dead easy to hack into.

APS-C will be standard in P&S soon so the 'real' cameras will have to have something better.

Interesting that Fuji still sell a MF rangfinder (120/220 film). I wouldn't bet against a prototype digital version of it being made somewhere

Once MF sensors get faster I would not bet against MF DSLR's becoming popular - like the Pentax 645 at 4fps would create an interesting alternative to the D800.

Mirrorless? Well maybe, there are tech issues there which would have to be resolved for the non comsumer bodies.

The first digital cameras were 320 by 200 pixels in 16 colours. That is a laughable resolution. At the time, some of us said to wait and see, the resolution would become better than 35mm film. Who's laughing now?

Digital is not film. To treat it like film is to apply restrictions to it that need not apply. To expect that an optical viewfinder technology is the best solution for a digital camera is flawed logic. Look at the latest generation of Apple products.... the Retina display is made up of finer pixels than the eye can detect.... this technology will give you as good of a viewfinder as optical because it is the human eye that is the limiting factor..... not the optics and not the display.

The digital viewfinder has a multitude of advantages over the optical viewfinder. First, by leaving it in the same spot as the optical viewfinder we can retain a familiar form factor yet eliminate most of the mechanicals of the camera... no more shutter... longer battery life, longer camera life... and you can adjust brightness/contrast/gamma on a digital viewfinder... try that on optical!

By putting an additional digital viewfinder on the back of the camera, the 3" or so tilt/swivel/touch screen, we open up a lot of new possibilities to see the image and control the camera.

And who says that the viewfinder has to be on the cameras? Ever hear of tethered shooting? I use it a lot for astrophotography.... and it's great for bird pictures too, set the camera up near the nest and step WAY back... How long before there is a wireless interface to the camera and you can use a smart phone or tablet?

Mirrorless is the way of the future. Don't expect the first ones out to be the "best camera ever", but just watch how soon they eclipse APSC and full frame...

My EOS Rebel G is plastic all the way with 3 focusing points and a FULL FRAME image area!

Good point! A new full-frame DSLR in a Rebel G body wouldn't be any larger than some mirrorless out there.

You cannot use the size of film camera as reference. Olympus is well known to make the camera as small as possible in the film days and digital now. Just look at the Om-D 50M. It is the size of the old OM4. But it only has a M4/3 sensor. So you just cannot expect to have a APS-C or FFsensor in the same size body as a film camera.

Wireless tethering to your phone or tablet & then we will not even need a built in lcd screen. Then we just need a really good digital viewfinder built in or better yet an adjustable viewing module.And while we're at it lets make the viewfinders a bit bigger across the board.